4.5 Article

Low level laser therapy (830 nm) improves bone repair in osteoporotic rats: Similar outcomes at two different dosages

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 136-142

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2011.11.005

Keywords

Bone repair; Osteoporosis; LLLT; Ovariectomy; Angiogenesis; Rat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of low level laser therapy (LLLT) in osteoporotic rats by means of subjective histopathological analysis, deposition of collagen at the site of fracture, biomechanical properties and immunohistochemistry for COX-2, Cbfa-1 and VEGF. Material and methods: A total of 30 female Wistar rats (12 weeks-old, +/- 250 g) were submitted to ovariectomy (OVX). Eight weeks after the OVX, a tibial bone defect was created in all animals and they were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 10): control bone defect group (CG): bone defects without any treatment; laser 60 J/cm(2) group (L60): animals irradiated with LLLT, at 60 J/cm(2) and laser 120 J/cm(2) group (L120): animals irradiated with LLLT, at 120 J/cm(2). Results: In the laser treated groups, at both fluences, a higher amount of newly formed bone was evidenced as well as granulation tissue compared to control. Picrosirius analysis demonstrated that irradiated animals presented a higher deposition of collagen fibers and a better organization of these fibers when compared to other groups, mainly at 120 J/cm(2). COX-2, Cbfa-1 or VEGF immunoreactivity was detected in a similar manner either 60 J/cm(2) or 120 J/cm(2) fluences. However, no differences were shown in the biomechanical analysis. Conclusion: Taken together, our results support the notion that LLLT improves bone repair in the tibia of osteoporotic rats as a result of stimulation of the newly formed bone, fibrovascularization and angiogenesis. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available